DOCSLIB.ORG

F—18 Navy Air Combat Fighter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

74 /2 >Af ^y - Senate H e a r tn ^ f^ n 12]$ Before the Committee on Appro priations (,() \ ER WIIA Storage ime nts F EB 1 2 « T H e -,M<rUN‘U«sni KAN S A S S F—18 Na vy Air Com bat Fighter Fiscal Year 1976 th CONGRESS, FIRS T SES SION H .R . 986 1 SPECIAL HEARING F - 1 8 NA VY AIR CO MBA T FIG H TER HEARING BEFORE A SUBC OMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE NIN ETY-FOURTH CONGRESS FIR ST SE SS IO N ON H .R . 9 8 6 1 AN ACT MAKIN G APP ROPR IA TIO NS FO R THE DEP ARTM EN T OF D EFEN SE FO R T H E FI SC AL YEA R EN DI NG JU N E 30, 1976, AND TH E PE RIO D BE GIN NIN G JU LY 1, 1976, AN D EN DI NG SEPT EM BER 30, 1976, AND FO R OTH ER PU RP OSE S P ri nte d fo r th e use of th e Com mittee on App ro pr ia tio ns SPECIAL HEARING U.S. GOVERNM ENT PRINT ING OFF ICE 60-913 O WASHINGTON : 1976 SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Ark ans as, Chairman JOH N C. ST ENN IS, Mississippi MILTON R. YOUNG, No rth D ako ta JOH N O. P ASTORE, Rhode Island ROMAN L. HRUSKA, N ebraska WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washin gton CLIFFORD I’. CASE, New Je rse y MIK E MANSFIEL D, Montana HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii GALE W. McGEE, Wyoming TE D STEV ENS, Alaska WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin RICH ARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylva nia JO SE PH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico DANIEL K. INOUYE, H awaii Ex Officio M embers F rom th e C om mittee on A rmed S ervices STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri STROM THURMOND, South Carolina HENRY M. JACKSON, Washin gton J ames R. C alloway Chief Counsel and Staff Director Guy G. M cConnell , R ichard D. L ieber man , D ouglas A. A llen , J ames A. F ellenbaum , and J oel E. B onner (Mino rity ) Staff A ssistants, Department of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee C O N T E N T S CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES Page Opening remarks of chairman____________________________________ 1 Stateme nt of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Haw aii_______ 4 Statement of Hon. Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator from Arizona_________ 6 Letter from Pr at t & Whitney____________________________________ 15 Hon. Lawton Chiles, U.S. Senator from Florida : Letter from_________________________________________________ 20 Statement of________________________________________________ 29 Prep ared statement of Hon. John Tower, U.S. Senator from Texas_____ 38 GEN ERA L ACCOUNTING OF FICE Statement of Paul G. Demhling, General Counsel____________________ 41 NONDEPA RTMENTAL WITNESSES Statement of George A. Spangenberg, McLean, Va____________________ 49 DEP ART MENT OF DE FENSE Offic e of the S ecretary Statement of William P. Clements, Deputy Secretary of Defense________ 69 Letter from : William P. Clements, Deputy Secretary of Defense_______________ 73 Hon. George Mahon, U.S. Representative from Texas____________ 74 Hon. John L. McClellan, U.S. Senator from Arkansas____________ 74 Prep ared stateme nt of Vice Adm. William D. Houser, USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Air Warfare)_____________________________ 95 DEPARTMENT OF TH E AIR FORCE Stateme nt of Lt. Gen. James Stew art, Commander, Aeronautical Systems Division, Wrig ht-Patterson AF Base, Ohio_______________________ 103 Questions submitted by Hon. Strom Thurmond, U.S. Senator from South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 104 (in) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO PRIATION S FOR FISCAL YEAR 1976 TU ESDA Y, OCTOBER 21, 1975 U.S. S enate, Subcommittee of the C ommittee on A ppropriations, Washington, D.G. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room 1223, Everett McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. John L. McClellan (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators McClellan, Pastore, Inouye, Young, Hruska, Stevens, and Symington. Also present: Senators Chiles and Goldwater. F-18 NAVY AIR COMBAT FIGH TE R OPEN IN G RE MAR KS BY CHA IR M AN Chairman McClellan. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair will make a brief statement. On May 5, 1975, this sub­ committee held a hearing on the lightweight fighter aircraft program, including the F-16 and F-18. These are expensive programs and they have generated considerable interest and some controversy. This hearing today has been called to further insure that the com­ mittee members have the opportunity to hear all of the pertinent facts and get full and detailed information relating to the lightweight fighter program. Subsequent to our hearing on May 5, the subcommittee heard De­ partment of Defense witnesses concerning the GAO investigation of the memorandum of understanding for the F-16 sale to Europe. We hope these hearings today will complete our inquiry into the F-16 pro­ gram, including the GAO decision on the protest of the LT\ aero­ space contract award for the F-18. SUMMARY ON GAO DECISION AND MEMORANDUM At this point I will insert in the record a summary of the GAO decision on the LTV protest and a copy of a memorandum which I sent to each member of this Defense Subcommittee regarding this meeting today. The full GAO decision will be retained in the com­ mittee files. [The summary and memorandum follow :] (D 2 Decision of the C omptroller G eneral of th e U nited S tates B-183851 October 1,1975. Re LTV Aerospace Corp. 1. Protest raising issues concerning inte rpretation of appropriation act and ‘‘congressional intent” as public policy will be considered in this case involving selection of a Navj’ Air Combat Fighter (NACF), whether or not timely filed, since protest raises significant issues concerning relationship of Congress and Executive on procurement matters. Issues regarding evalu ation and competition will also be considered since they are substantially intertwined with first issue and since GAO has continuing audit inte rest in NACF program. 2. Navy is not required as ma tter of law to expend funds provided in lump-sum appropriation act for a specific purpose when statute does not so require, not­ withstanding language contained in Conference Report. Absence of statutory re­ striction raises clear inference that the Report language paralleled and comple­ mented, but remained distinc t from, actu al appropriation made. Therefore, Navy selection of p articu lar aircraft design for its Air Combat Figh ter and resultant award of sustaining engineering contracts cannot be regarded as contrary to law. 3. While protester argues contract award by Navy should be regarded as void since it is not in accordance with public policy as expressed in congressional Con­ ference Rei>ort, awa rd is not contrary to statute, contract does not require any actions contrary to law, and does not represent a violation of moral or ethical standard s. Therefore no basis exists to conclude that award is contrary to public policy. 4. Although protester argues tha t Navy did not comply with DOD reprogramming directives, those directives are based on nonstatutory agreements and do not provide a proper basis for determining the legality of expenditures. 5. Provision in appropriation act which prohibits use of funds for presenting certain reprogramming requests cannot operate to invalidate contract awards even if awa rds resulted from reprogramming action since a violation of such pro­ vision cannot serve to invalidate an otherwise legal contract award. 6. Protester’s assertion that Navy properly could select only derivative of model selected by the Air Force is incorrect, since reasonable inte rpretation of RFQ, read in context of applicable documents, indicates that Navy sought air craft with optimum perform ance (within cost parame ters) and with due consideration of design commonality with prior Air Force prototype program and with selected Air Force fighter. 7. Protester’s claim that Navy did not tre at offerors on equal basis is not sup­ ported by record, which indicates tha t overall evaluation was conducted in ac­ cordance with established criteria and that both offerors were treated fairly. 8. Assertion that engine selected by Navy was not authorized for use with light­ weight fighter is w ithout merit, since record indicates selected engine is modified version of baseline engine listed in solicitation. Also, record indicates Navy did not improperly estim ate offerors’ engine modification costs. 9. Navy’s cost evaluatio n of competing proposals was conducted in accordance with proper procedures and established criteria since the Navy’s development of its own estimates in determining cost credibility was consistent with sound pro­ curement practices and awa rd of contract to higher priced offeror was not improper. 10. Restriction of competition in Navy procurement for Air Combat Fighter (ACF) to offerors furn ishing designs derived from Air Force ACF program was proper even though Navy selected derivative of design different from that chosen by Air Force, since solicitation was intended to maximize commonality of both technology and hardware between Air Force and Navy designs and Navy selec­ tion was in accordance with solicitation criteria regarding commonality. conclusion For the various reasons discussed above, we have concluded that the Navy’ actions were not illegal or improper and that therefore the protest must b denied. As indicated in the Introduction section, the Congress has manifested sis nificant inte rest in DOD's LWF/ACF programs and has closely monitored th Navy a atte mpt to develop a lightweight, low cost fighter that could operat a i r c r a f t carriers. The stateme nt in the Conference Report oi the 197o DOD Appropriation Act that “future funding is to be contingent upoi 3 the capability of the Navy to produce a derivative of the selected Air Force Air Combat Fighter design” suggest that the Congress will be closely scrutinizing the Navy’s choice before full-scale development funds will be provided.
Recommended publications
  • LESSON 3 Significant Aircraft of World War II

    LESSON 3 Significant Aircraft of World War II

    LESSON 3 Significant Aircraft of World War II ORREST LEE “WOODY” VOSLER of Lyndonville, Quick Write New York, was a radio operator and gunner during F World War ll. He was the second enlisted member of the Army Air Forces to receive the Medal of Honor. Staff Sergeant Vosler was assigned to a bomb group Time and time again we read about heroic acts based in England. On 20 December 1943, fl ying on his accomplished by military fourth combat mission over Bremen, Germany, Vosler’s servicemen and women B-17 was hit by anti-aircraft fi re, severely damaging it during wartime. After reading the story about and forcing it out of formation. Staff Sergeant Vosler, name Vosler was severely wounded in his legs and thighs three things he did to help his crew survive, which by a mortar shell exploding in the radio compartment. earned him the Medal With the tail end of the aircraft destroyed and the tail of Honor. gunner wounded in critical condition, Vosler stepped up and manned the guns. Without a man on the rear guns, the aircraft would have been defenseless against German fi ghters attacking from that direction. Learn About While providing cover fi re from the tail gun, Vosler was • the development of struck in the chest and face. Metal shrapnel was lodged bombers during the war into both of his eyes, impairing his vision. Able only to • the development of see indistinct shapes and blurs, Vosler never left his post fi ghters during the war and continued to fi re.
  • How the Luftwaffe Lost the Battle of Britain British Courage and Capability Might Not Have Been Enough to Win; German Mistakes Were Also Key

    How the Luftwaffe Lost the Battle of Britain British Courage and Capability Might Not Have Been Enough to Win; German Mistakes Were Also Key

    How the Luftwaffe Lost the Battle of Britain British courage and capability might not have been enough to win; German mistakes were also key. By John T. Correll n July 1940, the situation looked “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall can do more than delay the result.” Gen. dire for Great Britain. It had taken fight on the landing grounds, we shall Maxime Weygand, commander in chief Germany less than two months to fight in the fields and in the streets, we of French military forces until France’s invade and conquer most of Western shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, predicted, “In three weeks, IEurope. The fast-moving German Army, surrender.” England will have her neck wrung like supported by panzers and Stuka dive Not everyone agreed with Churchill. a chicken.” bombers, overwhelmed the Netherlands Appeasement and defeatism were rife in Thus it was that the events of July 10 and Belgium in a matter of days. France, the British Foreign Office. The Foreign through Oct. 31—known to history as the which had 114 divisions and outnumbered Secretary, Lord Halifax, believed that Battle of Britain—came as a surprise to the Germany in tanks and artillery, held out a Britain had lost already. To Churchill’s prophets of doom. Britain won. The RAF little longer but surrendered on June 22. fury, the undersecretary of state for for- proved to be a better combat force than Britain was fortunate to have extracted its eign affairs, Richard A. “Rab” Butler, told the Luftwaffe in almost every respect.
  • 5.2 Drag Reduction Through Higher Wing Loading David L. Kohlman

    5.2 Drag Reduction Through Higher Wing Loading David L. Kohlman

    5.2 Drag Reduction Through Higher Wing Loading David L. Kohlman University of Kansas |ntroduction The wing typically accounts for almost half of the wetted area of today's production light airplanes and approximately one-third of the total zero-lift or parasite drag. Thus the wing should be a primary focal point of any attempts to reduce drag of light aircraft with the most obvious configuration change being a reduction in wing area. Other possibilities involve changes in thickness, planform, and airfoil section. This paper will briefly discuss the effects of reducing wing area of typical light airplanes, constraints involved, and related configuration changes which may be necessary. Constraints and Benefits The wing area of current light airplanes is determined primarily by stall speed and/or climb performance requirements. Table I summarizes the resulting wing loading for a representative spectrum of single-engine airplanes. The maximum lift coefficient with full flaps, a constraint on wing size, is also listed. Note that wing loading (at maximum gross weight) ranges between about 10 and 20 psf, with most 4-place models averaging between 13 and 17. Maximum lift coefficient with full flaps ranges from 1.49 to 2.15. Clearly if CLmax can be increased, a corresponding decrease in wing area can be permitted with no change in stall speed. If total drag is not increased at climb speed, the change in wing area will not adversely affect climb performance either and cruise drag will be reduced. Though not related to drag, it is worthy of comment that the range of wing loading in Table I tends to produce a rather uncomfortable ride in turbulent air, as every light-plane pilot is well aware.
  • The P-51 Mustang 1 the Inspiration, Design and Legacy Behind the P

    The P-51 Mustang 1 the Inspiration, Design and Legacy Behind the P

    The P-51 Mustang 1 The Inspiration, Design and Legacy Behind the P-51 Mustang Matthew Hundt English 11 Ms. Morris Lake Mills High School February 25, 2013 The P-51 Mustang 2 The Inspiration, Design, and Legacy Behind the P-51 Mustang The year is 1940. Britain’s Royal Air Force (RAF), and later the American Army Air Force (AAF), were in dire need of a long-range escort fighter that would be capable of fending off the Luftwaffe, which “was a potent force” (Ludwig, 2003, p.94). In his 1982 work, Jablonski concluded that the only way for bombers to survive the hazardous trip to and from Germany was to have fighter escort that could accompany them round trip (p. 103). The response to that limitation was the P-51 Mustang, which became a major factor in the Allies’ triumph in the air war in the European Theater of Operations (ETO). During World War II, the British, due to extreme shortages of fighter aircraft, contacted North American Aviation (NAA), an American aircraft company, and asked them to design and subsequently manufacture an innovative fighter plane that would be superior to all German opposition. The ensuing plane, the P-51 Mustang, became the most revered and feared escort fighter of the war because of its extensive range, impressive aerodynamics that afforded maneuverability and speed, and the deadly armament it possessed (Jablonski, 1982, p. 97). The Mustang may be the most important and innovative fighter plane in history due to its impeccable combat record and sleek design. After France had been successfully defeated by Nazi Germany, the British realized that they needed to strengthen defense measures.
  • P-38J Over Europe 1170 US WWII FIGHTER 1:48 SCALE PLASTIC KIT

    P-38J Over Europe 1170 US WWII FIGHTER 1:48 SCALE PLASTIC KIT

    P-38J over Europe 1170 US WWII FIGHTER 1:48 SCALE PLASTIC KIT intro The Lockheed P-38 Lightning was developed to a United States Army Air Corps requirement. It became famous not only for its performance in the skies of WWII, but also for its unusual appearance. The Lightning, designed by the Lockheed team led by Chief Engineer Clarence 'Kelly' Johnson, was a complete departure from conventional airframe design. Powered by two liquid cooled inline V-1710 engines, it was almost twice the size of other US fighters and was armed with four .50 cal. machine guns plus a 20 mm cannon, giving the Lightning not only the firepower to deal with enemy aircraft, but also the capability to inflict heavy damage on ships. The first XP-38 prototype, 37-457, was built under tight secrecy and made its maiden flight on January 27, 1939. The USAAF wasn´t satisfied with the big new fighter, but gave permission for a transcontinental speed dash on February 11, 1939. During this event, test pilot Kelsey crashed at Mitchell Field, NY. Kelsey survived the cash but the airplane was written off. Despite this, Lockheed received a contract for thirteen preproduction YP-38s. The first production version was the P-38D (35 airplanes only armed with 37mm cannon), followed by 210 P-38Es which reverted back to the 20 mm cannon. These planes began to arrive in October 1941 just before America entered World War II. The next versions were P-38F, P-38G, P-38H and P-38J. The last of these introduced an improved shape of the engine nacelles with redesigned air intakes and cooling system.
  • The Cost of Replacing Today's Air Force Fleet

    The Cost of Replacing Today's Air Force Fleet

    CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE The Cost of Replacing Today’s Air Force Fleet DECEMBER 2018 Notes The years referred to in this report are federal fiscal years, which run from October 1 to September 30 and are designated by the calendar year in which they end. All costs are expressed in 2018 dollars. For the years before 2018, costs are adjusted for inflation using the gross domestic product price index from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Costs for years after 2018 are adjusted for inflation using the Congressional Budget Office’s projection of that index. On the cover: An F-15C Eagle during takeoff. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sergeant Joe W. McFadden. www.cbo.gov/publication/54657 Contents Summary 1 Today’s Air Force Aircraft and Their Replacement Costs 1 BOX 1. MAJOR AIRCRAFT IN THE AIR FORCE’S FLEET AND THEIR PRIMARY FUNCTIONS 2 How CBO Made Its Projections 5 Projected Costs of New Fighter Aircraft 6 F-35A 7 Light Attack Aircraft 7 Penetrating Counter Air Aircraft 8 Managing Procurement Costs in Peak Years 9 Appendix: Composition of the Current Air Force Fleet and CBO’s Estimate of Replacement Costs 11 List of Tables and Figures 18 About This Document 19 The Cost of Replacing Today’s Air Force Fleet Summary different missions (seeBox 1 and the appendix). They The U.S. Air Force has about 5,600 aircraft, which range range widely in age from the 75 new aircraft that entered in age from just-delivered to 60 years old.
  • The P-38 Lightning in Europe

    The P-38 Lightning in Europe

    Buy Now! Home The P-38 Lightning in Europe By Jonathan Lupton With one engine out and a propeller feathered, a P-38 flies home protected by heavily-armed B-17s. Background he P-38 Lightning was short, it’s almost always described as assumption—that bombers could one of the world’s fastest having been overshadowed by the protect themselves against enemy T aircraft when it first flew P-51 Mustang, a fighter that proved fighter interceptors—wasn’t working. early in 1939. Its eccentric design was to be an ideal long-range escort. immediately seen as exciting rather It would be wrong, though, to Strategic Dilemma than off-putting: its airframe featured simply downplay the P-38. They twin “booms” and a cockpit “pod” provided the bulk of long-range escort Prior to the war the US Army Air Air Corps doctrine further boxes,” could defeat German intercep- P-47 Thunderbolt fighters helped, but in place of a traditional fuselage. fighters during the critical operations Corps (the USAAF’s prewar organi- mandated bombers alone would tor attacks. By the late summer of 1943, they couldn’t escort the bombers all The Lightning was, in fact, one of of January through March 1944, the zational predecessor) had developed dominate future air war. Its leaders that view was clearly out of date. the way to targets deep in Germany. the US Army Air Force’s (USAAF) most decisive period during which the the strategic doctrine of “daylight shared the view of most air com- In fact, as early as 1940 the Battle The USAAF therefore began experi- important aircraft during the war.
  • Effects-Based Operations and the Law of Aerial Warfare

    Effects-Based Operations and the Law of Aerial Warfare

    Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 January 2006 Effects-based Operations and the Law of Aerial Warfare Michael N. Schmitt George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation Michael N. Schmitt, Effects-based Operations and the Law of Aerial Warfare, 5 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 265 (2006), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol5/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Global Studies Law Review VOLUME 5 NUMBER 2 2006 EFFECTS-BASED OPERATIONS AND THE LAW OF AERIAL WARFARE MICHAEL N. SCHMITT* Law responds almost instinctively to tectonic shifts in warfare.1 For instance, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 constituted a dramatic reaction to the suffering of civilian populations during World War II.2 Similarly, the 1977 Protocols Additional3 updated and expanded the law of armed conflict (LOAC) in response both to the growing prevalence of non-international armed conflicts and wars of national liberation and to the recognized need to codify the norms governing the conduct of hostilities.4 In light of this symbiotic relationship, it is essential that LOAC experts carefully monitor developments in military affairs, because such developments may well either strain or strengthen aspects of that body of law.5 As an example, the widespread use in Iraq of civilian contractors and * Professor of International Law and Director, Program in Advanced Security Studies, George C.
  • DI CP19 F1 Ocrcombined.Pdf

    DI CP19 F1 Ocrcombined.Pdf

    CONTRIBUTOR’S CARD Daniel K. Inouye in 92 No corporate checks may be accepted. Name ______________________________________________________________________ Address ____________________________________________________________________ C ity _________________ S ta te ___________________ Zip C ode __________________ Home Phone ________________________ Business Phone ________________________ Employer ____________________________ Occupation ___________________________ FEC# (if applicable) _____________ Primary ______________ General ______________ d l Check here if self-employed. CH Check here if not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien. Please make check payable to Daniel K. Inouye in 92 In-kind contribution (if applicable) Description ___________________________________________________ Market Price $ _____________________ (Attached invoice if applicable) Amount _$ ___________________ Paid for by: Daniel K. Inouye in 92 ______________ Abelina Madrid Shaw, Treasurer FEC # C00213314 911 2nd Street, N.E., Suite 101 A, Washington, D.C. 20002 This information is required of all contributions by the Federal Election Campaign Act. Corporation checks or funds, funds from government contractors and foreign nationals, and contributions made in the name of another cannot be accepted. Contributions or gifts to Daniel K. Inouye in 92 are not tax deductible. A copy of our report is on file with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C. 20463. JUN 18 '92 12=26 SEN. INOUYE CAMPAIGN 808 5911005 P.l 909 KAPIOLANI BOULEVARD HONOLULU, HAWAII 96814 (808) 591-VOTE (8683) 591-1005 (Fax) FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION TO; JENNIFER GOTO FAX#: NESTOR GARCIA FROM: KIMI UTO DATE; JUNE 1 8 , 1992 SUBJECT: CAMPAIGN WORKSHOP Number of pages Including this cover sheet: s Please contact K im i . at (808) 591-8683 if you have any problems with this transmission.
  • Subsonic Aircraft Wing Conceptual Design Synthesis and Analysis

    Subsonic Aircraft Wing Conceptual Design Synthesis and Analysis

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by GSSRR.ORG: International Journals: Publishing Research Papers in all Fields International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) ISSN 2307-4531 (Print & Online) http://gssrr.org/index.php?journal=JournalOfBasicAndApplied --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subsonic Aircraft Wing Conceptual Design Synthesis and Analysis Abderrahmane BADIS Electrical and Electronic Communication Engineer from UMBB (Ex.INELEC) Independent Electronics, Aeronautics, Propulsion, Well Logging and Software Design Research Engineer Takerboust, Aghbalou, Bouira 10007, Algeria [email protected] Abstract This paper exposes a simplified preliminary conceptual integrated method to design an aircraft wing in subsonic speeds up to Mach 0.85. The proposed approach is integrated, as it allows an early estimation of main aircraft aerodynamic features, namely the maximum lift-to-drag ratio and the total parasitic drag. First, the influence of the Lift and Load scatterings on the overall performance characteristics of the wing are discussed. It is established that the optimization is achieved by designing a wing geometry that yields elliptical lift and load distributions. Second, the reference trapezoidal wing is considered the base line geometry used to outline the wing shape layout. As such, the main geometrical parameters and governing relations for a trapezoidal wing are
  • Aircraft Collection

    Aircraft Collection

    A, AIR & SPA ID SE CE MU REP SEU INT M AIRCRAFT COLLECTION From the Avenger torpedo bomber, a stalwart from Intrepid’s World War II service, to the A-12, the spy plane from the Cold War, this collection reflects some of the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS IN MILITARY AVIATION. Photo: Liam Marshall TABLE OF CONTENTS Bombers / Attack Fighters Multirole Helicopters Reconnaissance / Surveillance Trainers OV-101 Enterprise Concorde Aircraft Restoration Hangar Photo: Liam Marshall BOMBERS/ATTACK The basic mission of the aircraft carrier is to project the U.S. Navy’s military strength far beyond our shores. These warships are primarily deployed to deter aggression and protect American strategic interests. Should deterrence fail, the carrier’s bombers and attack aircraft engage in vital operations to support other forces. The collection includes the 1940-designed Grumman TBM Avenger of World War II. Also on display is the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, a true workhorse of the 1950s and ‘60s, as well as the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and Grumman A-6 Intruder, stalwarts of the Vietnam War. Photo: Collection of the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum GRUMMAN / EASTERNGRUMMAN AIRCRAFT AVENGER TBM-3E GRUMMAN/EASTERN AIRCRAFT TBM-3E AVENGER TORPEDO BOMBER First flown in 1941 and introduced operationally in June 1942, the Avenger became the U.S. Navy’s standard torpedo bomber throughout World War II, with more than 9,836 constructed. Originally built as the TBF by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, they were affectionately nicknamed “Turkeys” for their somewhat ungainly appearance. Bomber Torpedo In 1943 Grumman was tasked to build the F6F Hellcat fighter for the Navy.
  • Lightweight Fighter Aircraft Program

    Lightweight Fighter Aircraft Program

    / C '3 3 'GOVERNMENT Senate Hearing^ Storage Before the Committee on Appro priation s Y)t )C U M r HTS -------- -------------- L ig h tw e ig h t F ig h te r A ir c ra ft P ro g ra m . T 0 7 6 MAY 1 ? 1975 t h ^ ta« un^ X s,ty KANSA o Lightweight Fighter Aircraft Program m in H < —'— J- □ " 1 □ IT Fis ca l Y ear 1976 H H < 94“ CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION LIGHTWEIGHT FIGH TER AIRC RA FT PROGRAM H E A R IN G BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE NIN ETY-F OURTH CONGRESS F IR ST SE SS IO N Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 52-600 0 WASHINGTON : 1975 SU BC OM MITTE E OF THE CO MMIT TE E ON APP ROPR IA TIO NS JO HN L. McC LE LL AN , A rk an sa s, C hair m an JO HN C. ST EN NIS , Mississ ippi MILTO N R. YOUNG, Nor th Dak ot a JO HN O. PA ST OR E, Rhode Island ROMAN L. HR US KA , Neb ra sk a WA RREN G. MAGNUSON, W as hing ton CL IF FO RD I’. CA SE, New Je rs ey MIK E MANS FIEL D, M on tana HIRA M L. FON G, Haw aii GALE W. Mc GE E, Wyomi ng TE D ST EV EN S, Alaska WILL IAM I’ROX MIRE, Wisco nsin RICH AR D S.